Wednesday, November 09, 2011

In a written statement that was reprinted by the Bismarck Tribune on November 8, 2011, Judge Cynthia Feland responded regarding her attorney ethics conviction by continuing her pervasive deceits when she stated that:

"The trial judge and the Supreme Court have already found the truth when they ruled that the defense in the Blunt case had all of the pertinent information. The State Auditor's and the State's' Attorney's offices' records are clear that the defendant had all of the information, some of it multiple times over. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will have to deal with this case again."

This statement is a bold faced lie. She did not provide to Sandy Blunt’s attorney, Michael Hoffman "all of the pertinent information". The Disciplinary Hearing brought out into the open the fact that the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Michael Quinn authored four reports in the fall of 2007 as the result of investigation of Sandy Blunt that he did at the direction of Cynthia Feland. Those reports were not, although specifically and repeatedly requested before the Blunt trial provided to Blunt. A small number of the approximately 480 pages of attachments were given to the defendant. Those documents consisted of primarily informational records such as payment records, time records, and communications between WSI and Dave Spencer. But a whole lot of information was not provided to the defendant from those attachments and very much of it was in the opinion of this author exculpatory.

Evidence that was in the possession of the prosecution at the time of the trial and not provided to Mr. Blunt include:

The November 8, 2007 Auditor Jason “Wahl Memo” to Cynthia Feland concerning David Spencer’s separation and establishing the involuntary nature of that separation.

The four Investigation Reports of BCI Special Agent Michael Quinn authored during and provided to BCSAO in the fall of 2007 that included overt statements by prosecution witnesses concerning David Spencer’s separation and establishing the involuntary nature of that separation.

Billi Peltz’s hand written notes concerning David Spencer.

An 1.3 hour long audio recording of S/A Quinn questioning prosecution witness Jim Long concerning David Spencer’s separation and establishing the involuntary nature of that separation.

Jodi Bjornson’s Diary with numerous portions concerning David Spencer’s separation and establishing the involuntary nature of that separation.

A Series C Auditor’s working papers without annotation that had been edited to remove items related to David Spencer.

And these are only some of the documents withheld!

In fact the Disciplinary Board Panel that adjudicated the Cynthia Feland hearing state, in direct refutation of Feland’s public claims in the Bismarck Tribune that:

FINDINGS OF FACT

10. …. When the supreme court returned the case to district court, Feland provided Attorney Hoffman with some documents that had been received during the appeal period, but there is no evidence that the full investigative reports and Wahl memo accumulated by Feland during the appeal were provided to Attorney Hoffman.

And

12. The investigative reports that were not provided to Hoffman included reports from BCI Agent Quinn that were obtained by the State during the time when the criminal case was on appeal from the trial court's dismissal. Included in those documents was a report that Agent Quinn spoke with Auditor Wahl, and Wahl basically repeated the same language that is in the Wahl memo to Feland of November 8, 2007.

I believe that the clinical term is pathological….. Cynthia Feland is no longer the Prevaricating Prosecutor. She has become the Duplicitous Jurist – “The Lying Judge.”

To publically and repeatedly call an attorney, former prosecutor, and now judge a liar seems a very dangerous thing. And according to North Dakota law could be ruinous.

Claims like this are made by either the insane, the stupid, or one who has sufficient command of fact to verify such a contention.

Truth is the only protection against legal liability when one makes such an assertion.